Friday, February 20, 2015
President Obama’s immigration plan and his national health care law both
face legal challenges this year that could bring them to a halt. But
one-in-four voters think the president should be able to ignore the
courts if he wants to, and Democrats believe that even more strongly.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 26% of Likely U.S. Voters think the president should have the right to ignore federal court rulings if they are standing in the way of actions he feels are important for the country. Sixty percent (60%) disagree and say the president should not have the right to ignore the courts. Fifteen percent (15%) are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
But perhaps more unsettling to supporters of constitutional checks and balances is the finding that 43% of Democrats believe the president should have the right to ignore the courts. Only 35% of voters in President Obama’s party disagree, compared to 81% of Republicans and 67% of voters not affiliated with either major party.
Fifty-two percent (52%) of all voters believe, generally speaking, that court challenges of actions approved by the president and Congress help protect the rights of U.S. citizens. Thirty percent (30%), however, consider such challenges mostly nuisances that stand in the way of good policy. Eighteen percent (18%) are not sure.
Thirty-one percent (31%) think it is more important for government to operate efficiently than it is to preserve our system of checks and balances. Nearly twice as many (59%) place more importance on maintaining checks and balances. Eleven percent (11%) are undecided.
People now believe the president should be above the law. At least in a partisan basis.
Partisanship at it's finest with people willing to sacrifice the constitution for their political beliefs.
ReplyDeleteIt's not just the left but the right as well.
Politics as usual.
ReplyDeleteSad that people are so willing to sacrifice more of the limited freedom we have left.
DeleteI guess it is about twenty years ago that I first began looking at the political side of your history. I had read the constitution years before and the accounts of the deliberations of the Continental congress and later the congress in Philadelphia to draft the Constitution. At the time I was still a British Subject in mind and spirit. I stumbled on the writings of Jefferson and Henry and the ranting of Samuel Adams and the self interested ideals of Hancock. I also stumbled on the Federalist Papers in a local second hand book store together with an autobiography of Hamilton by Frederick Scott Oliver from about 1900.
DeleteHere then was the beginning from which developed an interest and in part some small understanding. From the very beginning it was apparent that the founders were intent on creating a nation for themselves but they were reluctant to enslave themselves by following the customs of their masters in England. It is quite obvious that the declaration of Independence was more than a document of intent, it was a rallying cry to all Americans with the sole aim of ridding your citizens of the tyrannical yolk of British Rule and the inequities which had been imposed by taxes and deprivation of the right of representation. I do believe however that the mindset learnt the hard way from the Brits,was a major factor in the deliberations which went towards framing your constitution.
Here in my mind is the beginning of what I see as a problem for your nation. I know William and Louman will hang me for it but some thirty percent of voters now seem to agree that the President should be permitted to rule in the interests of the nation without having to endure the constraints imposed by the courts. You have your protection in the first ten amendments to the constitution, your sacrosanct rights for which some are prepared to die are preserved and your nation is still “The land of the Free”.
What your nation is not, is the land of equality, look at the figures of wealth distribution, of racial mix in your prisons , the disparity in affordable health care and the shambolic state of your immigration policy just to mention a few.,
Here and now you have a Congress which is intent only in tearing down everything the President wants to do, or has done in the past. It is now that I can see the case for the President to do things for the good of the nation if Congress refuses to do so. Is the health care system introduced by the President so bad? Would Congress pass the immigration bills if they had been introduced by a Republican President.
If you cannot agree that the President be given these powers, then I must enquire of my friends as to why you even bother to elect this third arm of a so called triumvirate where all arms are supposed to be equal?. It can only be equal if all three arms are of the same political persuasion perhaps?. Having asked the question above; I fear I am likely from William to get the time honoured response of Constitutional integrity and rights given by God.
In closing, I would have written the same message if the political configuration in your country was reversed. Perhaps there is a logic beyond the ken of outsiders, this however is the firts evidence I have seen which demonstrates that at least a good proportion of your people are prepared to look forward and not backwards.
Cheers friends from Aussie
A question, without the intervention of the courts, how do you stop a chief executive intent on exercising his will, not the will of the people on the country? Who says the president is acting in the best interest of the nation? Is an open border in the best interest of this country? Is a broken healthcare law in the best interest of this country? Is the presidents refusal to compromise in the best interest of the country? My way or the highway, the way of this president.
DeleteThe president is not the law making body in this country, the congress is. The president is responsible for enforcing laws enacted by congress. The judicial branch is there to ensure both arms of the government follow the rules laid out on the constitution. Each branch of the government has a job to do, it requires compromise to do that job. It requires Harry Reid to compromise with the Repubs and the Pubs to compromise with the democrats. Neither side is always right or wrong. In this we have lost our way. The tone was set with the attitude set in January 2009.
Why do we have such inequality in this country? Is it because the government has allowed it? Doesn't every society have poor, middle income and wealthy? Has the actions of the Fed exacerbated the inequality in wealth with their policies? Have the free trade agreements traded middle class jobs for cheap imports and stable governments.
Where has the inequality really come from?
We currently have 2 major political parties which wield power by excluding minority parties via the wealth they can raise. We as a society have allowed this by supporting the winner clause where no one wants to support a loser.
The courts are there for a reason:
DeleteTyranny Of The Majority
How the principle of the sovereignty of the people is to be understood—Impossibility of conceiving a mixed government—The sovereign power must centre somewhere—Precautions to be taken to control its action—These precautions have not been taken in the United States—Consequences.
I hold it to be an impious and an execrable [execrable: extremely bad or unpleasant] maxim that, politically speaking, a people has a right to do whatsoever it pleases, and yet I have asserted that all authority originates in the will of the majority. Am I then, in contradiction with myself?
A general law—which bears the name of Justice—has been made and sanctioned, not only by a majority of this or that people, but by a majority of mankind. The rights of every people are consequently confined within the limits of what is just. A nation may be considered in the light of a jury which is empowered to represent society at large, and to apply the great and general law of justice. Ought such a jury, which represents society, to have more power than the society in which the laws it applies originate?
When I refuse to obey an unjust law, I do not contest the right which the majority has of commanding, but I simply appeal from the sovereignty of the people to the sovereignty of mankind. It has been asserted that a people can never entirely outstep the boundaries of justice and of reason in those affairs which are more peculiarly its own, and that consequently, full power may fearlessly be given to the majority by which it is represented. But this language is that of a slave. A majority taken collectively may be regarded as a being whose opinions, and most frequently whose interests, are opposed to those of another being, which is styled a minority. If it be admitted that a man, possessing absolute power, may misuse that power by wronging his adversaries, why should a majority not be liable to the same reproach? Men are not apt to change their characters by agglomeration; nor does their patience in the presence of obstacles increase with the consciousness of their strength. *c And for these reasons I can never willingly invest any number of my fellow-creatures with that unlimited authority which I should refuse to any one of them.
[ No one will assert that a people cannot forcibly wrong another people; but parties may be looked upon as lesser nations within a greater one, and they are aliens to each other: if, therefore, it be admitted that a nation can act tyrannically towards another nation, it cannot be denied that a party may do the same towards another party.]
I do not think that it is possible to combine several principles in the same government, so as at the same time to maintain freedom, and really to oppose them to one another. The form of government which is usually termed mixed has always appeared to me to be a mere chimera. Accurately speaking there is no such thing as a mixed government (with the meaning usually given to that word), because in all communities some one principle of action may be discovered which preponderates over the others. England in the last century, which has been more especially cited as an example of this form of Government, was in point of fact an essentially aristocratic State, although it comprised very powerful elements of democracy; for the laws and customs of the country were such that the aristocracy could not but preponderate in the end, and subject the direction of public affairs to its own will. The error arose from too much attention being paid to the actual struggle which was going on between the nobles and the people, without considering the probable issue of the contest, which was in reality the important point. When a community really has a mixed government, that is to say, when it is equally divided between two adverse principles, it must either pass through a revolution or fall into complete dissolution.
I am therefore of opinion that some one social power must always be made to predominate over the others; but I think that liberty is endangered when this power is checked by no obstacles which may retard its course, and force it to moderate its own vehemence.
DeleteUnlimited power is in itself a bad and dangerous thing; human beings are not competent to exercise it with discretion, and God alone can be omnipotent, because His wisdom and His justice are always equal to His power. But no power upon earth is so worthy of honor for itself, or of reverential obedience to the rights which it represents, that I would consent to admit its uncontrolled and all-predominant authority. When I see that the right and the means of absolute command are conferred on a people or upon a king, upon an aristocracy or a democracy, a monarchy or a republic, I recognize the germ of tyranny, and I journey onward to a land of more hopeful institutions.
In my opinion the main evil of the present democratic institutions of the United States does not arise, as is often asserted in Europe, from their weakness, but from their overpowering strength; and I am not so much alarmed at the excessive liberty which reigns in that country as at the very inadequate securities which exist against tyranny.
When an individual or a party is wronged in the United States, to whom can he apply for redress? If to public opinion, public opinion constitutes the majority; if to the legislature, it represents the majority, and implicitly obeys its injunctions; if to the executive power, it is appointed by the majority, and remains a passive tool in its hands; the public troops consist of the majority under arms; the jury is the majority invested with the right of hearing judicial cases; and in certain States even the judges are elected by the majority. However iniquitous or absurd the evil of which you complain may be, you must submit to it as well as you can.
"The Tyranny of the Majority" - from Alexis de Tocqueville's "Democracy in America" 1835
Lou.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the considered response It was not unexpected!. I feel that our own thoughts and reasoning are important here; more so than the somewhat esoteric offering of Tocqueville who penned the learned tome almost 200 years ago. America and the world were so different then, not the least in means of rapid communication and total population of the nation.
Now we have instant communication, universal literacy and lobbyists within the corridors of power all pushing their own barrow of self interest or perhaps the interest of their employer which is even worse.
We have, by the very existence of the Constitution the awkward and unworkable system of government we have seen for decades as first one then the other party control at least two of the arms of government. I can see the reasoning behind the poll results you quote in the initial post. People are now more politically aware than were their parents and grandparents, they are fed news, rumor and innuendo on a minute by minute cycle by outlets parading their own bias as they try to brainwash the populace.
The nation may not be ready to change now, I do however think that change will eventually be forced on the nation in the same way that change of a similar kind must occur here in Australia. If the CEO of the biggest firms in the world were to be restricted as is your President or my Government in the Senate, the business would simply disappear down the drain.
As for your particular gripes in the first paragraphs of your post. Lou, are these not views from an opponent of the Presidents party?. It is this very problem I am trying to address. Two groups pulling in opposite directions will and have produced anarchy within government. I support the alternative of the third arm having the power to push the nation in a certain direction for a given period. The populace can then decide if this has been good for the country or not, Their decision will act as a guide to the incoming man or woman. By the way I would think this new approach would have finite limits. It could only apply if there was a numerical distortion on the Hill with one house (the Senate) blocking legislation proposed by both the Pres and the Reps.
Cheers mate from Aussie.
I support the alternative of the third arm having the power to push the nation in a certain direction for a given period.
DeleteThe problem with this thought is a single word… Precedent. Some things ‘stick’ better than others and undoing bad policy is sometimes literally impossible even if there is an overwhelming consensus to roll it back. Regardless of how one feels about the long term effect on society of say… Social Security; unwinding the program and more importantly undoing the precedent which created the program is virtually a nonstarter. Even with a constructionist view of the constitution, precedent as always been a chain around the neck of a weak judiciary. The creation of social security set a social engineering precedent that now gives government carte blanch to create any social program one can conjure. Regardless of how you feel about the subjects that we are dealing in regards to social America, I can guarantee that had this president announce this policies on healthcare and immigration, he never would have gotten elected and had he had the open ability to pursue his agenda, it would be considerably more odorous than it currently is. The problem of course is that the combination of this president and the last, have pushed the boundaries of what is allowable to a whole new level and if these many precedents stand for another presidential term… our constitutional foundation is pretty well toast.
P.S. The president has great latitude in managing the Federal government and being prudent with the nation’s wealth, but far from being CEO material, they are just looking for votes and their in lies the rub... and making a considerable amount of the federal government disappear down the drain is a very prudent idea. Unless you see the government as creator and giver of jobs where do you compare the priorities of CEO vs President anyway? I mean... the president has the power to spend a lot of money to blow up a lot of things... CEO's not so much.
As for your particular gripes in the first paragraphs of your post. Lou, are these not views from an opponent of the Presidents party?.
ReplyDeleteRCP Average 2/7 - 2/20 --
Approval: 45.7%
Disapprove: 49.6%
Seems the majority of Americans disapprove of our current president.
The question remains, should the president unpopular today be allowed to implement his policies, laws, standards when the majority disapprove?
The problem we have today when a sitting president becomes unpopular we are forced to endure his presidency to the end of his term. Fortunately the founding fathers put in place the courts to reign in the ultimate power some seek.
The problem today was set in motion in 2009 with the power of the majority who alienated and marginalized the minority party. The ACA is the perfect example, an unpopular law then and still not supported by the majority of Americans. Should this be allowed to stand? The president and Harry Reid say yes, it should while the American people have turned the house over to the repub's in 2010 now the Senate in 2014. One would think that the president would work with the congress to implement policies acceptable to all yet, he has decided to become the lawmaker and the enforcer enforcing what he chooses. Bill Clinton faced a similar situation, he chose to compromise and many great things were accomplished as opposed to the ruler today.
Perhaps we are fast approaching the definition.
A dictator is a ruler who wields absolute authority. Is this what you suggest?
Interesting if O were a Repub, the democrats would be howling at the over reach of government. I prefer the grid lock vs the tyranny that O imposes on the American people if left unchecked.
Approval: 45.7%
DeleteDisapprove: 49.6%
This, to me, is like saying that when 36% of all potential voters actually show up to deliver a mid term ass whipping, it's proof that Americans want change. Predictably, we could run through our usual list of what each side does to obstruct, but in the end, you believe Democrats are worse at it than Republicans, and I believe the opposite.
So, I'll instead rehash a different tact. We get what we deserve. We no longer, as a nation, have any respect for anyone that runs for office and we certainly don't have any respect for government in general. Since everyone can find something they don't like, it can be said, as your poll shows, that a "majority" of Americans are displeased. By your poll, Obama is at least in the middle. By contrast, congress is fucking hated. Yet, the party presiding over the institution with a 10% approval rating is given even more power. Tyranny of the majority? Really?
Even with Obama's hated actions, he is STILL somewhere in the middle. Bush did a ton of shit I didn't like. And for something like the Iraq war, which we were completely lied into, I still accepted that the people of the country more or less wanted it. I also accepted in the second term that the Democrats put up a shitty candidate and could not convince the American people they had a better plan. I didn't, however, go running around whining that the president didn't love me or love the country. But, this is where we stand today.
The polls and voter turnouts to me suggest that Americans simply don't care about day to day governing. They show up for POTUS elections, and completely give up their voice. In short, voters don't vote, and we were given a congress who didn't vote either. The Clinton argument is not equivalent to me. Newt actually paid a price for shutting the government down. Now, people are starting to not even care about that any more. When Clinton was POTUS, he was at least presented bills that had some sort of compromise. That doesn't happen any more. To keep blaming Obama for much of it seems offbase to me.
last para, second senctence should read, they show up for POTUS and walk away at midterm
DeleteYou could have said the same thing in 2008 or in 2012. Both election delivered approximately half of the eligible voters. Obama was elected by a huge 21% of eligible voters in 12, pathetic.
DeleteThe tyranny of the majority is a representation of how congress was run in 2009/10. That ended and we entered gridlock which the voters preferred to the tyranny of the Dems passing unpopular legislation. Perhaps you could refer to it as payment for their agenda.
Shutting the government down? As proven by Obama's shutdown a tool used to punish the GOP and the people. Government does need to be reformed, downsized to reduce waste duplication. People are tired of bloated government however we have reached the point where it cannot be changes as it continues to expand supporting 60% of people with handouts 4 trillion worth this year.
As far as congress hated? You are correct. All the Dems hate congress as they no longer control government. R's hate congress as nothing gets done in the senate thanks to Harry's continuous filibuster. Perhaps the R's should end the filibuster as Harry did during his reign of terror. Nevada has much to be proud of with their favorite politician. Sorry that was a cheap shot.
"All the Dems hate congress as they no longer control government. R's hate congress as nothing gets done in the senate thanks to Harry's continuous filibuster."
DeleteYou honestly believe this? Someday, everything will go back to Republicans, you will be no happier, but you won't have Democrats to blame. What then?
And yes I do dislike congress as they are largely self serving looking only to the next election. Think the R's who claim we should cut the size of government will reduce spending? They won't as they claim it will hurt their chances in 2016. The Dem's vilified the R's for spending during the Bush years with your leader claiming it's unpatriotic to spend our great grand children's future today yet here we are spending as if there were no tomorrow. I do not support the R's in Congress as they are much the same as the Dems.
DeleteI am personally tired of both parties where you hold your nose when you vote and vote for the least objectionable candidate. As I have said before, time for a new party as the 2 party system is broken.
Prior to Obama ' s first election as president he stated that his administration would "fundamentally change America." Well king he won that election despite a large number of Americans being in disagreement with that stated purpose. The 2010 election began the kickback against the socialists agenda followed by the 2014 election which notably produced governors in bloody red States such as Maryland (Federal candy land) and Obama ' s home State of Illinois. The House shifted further away from the executive than any time since the 1920's. The Senate was almost an after thought compared to what happened on the the State and local levels. Frankly king, Obama has been a catalyst for America's latest reformation.
ReplyDeleteThe marketing folks over in the dem camp are working night and day to come up with a rebranding solution for HRC. As the media has reported they have on staff former executives from Coca Cola, Wall Mart, and various silicon valley firms involved in this effort. Mrs. Clinton at 67 has been in the public eye for over 40 years. One wonders why at this point she would have to be redefined. Oh well, stick her face on a milk carton or coke can and off we go.
Of course if she wins king you will be able to continue your incessant rail against DC gridlock because that's what will ensue from that future arrangement were it to occur. Those of us who realized the paradigm of February 2009 aren't just sitting and awaiting that election result. As so often mentioned before, we are in it until our graves. We don't believe that the greatest constitution ever created needs to be fundamentally altered.
Now back to more snow shoveling.
It is good to see that this group still survives to have a small voice on the net. I think that more Americans should participate in these types of media to have a voice in their Government. What is puzzling is that so few speak out, about anything, at all! The reason I spoke out on the MW blog was to have a voice, what I see now is that the O administration has such a one sided bullhorn in the press that other perspectives have given up even trying to be heard. The "Fifth Estate" has failed this country, and due to the recent landslide election for the Pubs the press will be hard pressed to even write a single word in the next few years.
ReplyDeleteThe Fifth Estate is a modern extension of the three classical Estates of the Realm. The Fifth Estate is most strongly associated with bloggers, journalists, and media outlets that operate outside of the mainstream media. It may also include political groups and other groups outside of the mainstream in their views and functions in society (the term "Fourth Estate" emerged in reference to forces outside the established power structure, and now refers to the independent press or media).
Sadly, it no longer exists.
Does apathy reigns supreme in America today? I often wonder is it apathy or people so focus on the struggle to survive.
DeleteMy wife subscribed to the Denver Post for a year. It's a cut and paste newspaper from the NYT, Assoc. Press, and host of other sources. Little actual reporting and the information portrayed is certainly one sided with no original thought.
At least they now have it labeled correctly, estate, dead.
Good to see your post.
Hello Brandt! Hope the twins are well.
DeleteIf we wanted to expand our user base on this blog how would we go about inviting new people?
It is good to see that this group still survives to have a small voice on the net. I think that more Americans should participate in these types of media to have a voice in their Government. What is puzzling is that so few speak out, about anything, at all! The reason I spoke out on the MW blog was to have a voice, what I see now is that the O administration has such a one sided bullhorn in the press that other perspectives have given up even trying to be heard. The "Fifth Estate" has failed this country, and due to the recent landslide election for the Pubs the press will be hard pressed to even write a single word in the next few years.
ReplyDeleteThe Fifth Estate is a modern extension of the three classical Estates of the Realm. The Fifth Estate is most strongly associated with bloggers, journalists, and media outlets that operate outside of the mainstream media. It may also include political groups and other groups outside of the mainstream in their views and functions in society (the term "Fourth Estate" emerged in reference to forces outside the established power structure, and now refers to the independent press or media).
Sadly, it no longer exists.
This has been a good debate; I wonder if the quality of the debate has a direct relationship to the survey which is quoted in the very first post by Louman. To paraphrase, 26 percent of respondents want unfettered Presidential power. Take this to its logical conclusion and word the question differently e.g. Do you agree that the president should be able to ignore the courts if he has a deadlocked and obstructionist congress?.
ReplyDeleteI have never before seen a broad section of the community voice such a strong opinion on this or any question which touches the cornerstone of your nation, the Constitution of the United States. In my opinion, which is worth absolutely nothing in your country, there is a need for change. Not simply for the sake of change but to bring the Constitution kicking and screaming into the world which has changed so much from the day in 1778 when New Hampshire became the ninth state to ratify the document, herby producing the majority required by article 7 ( am writing from memory concerning the article of enablement).
Having stated my position, I would draw the argument a little further by contrasting our two nations and their governments. Both governments and legal systems are broadly based on the British system and the lessons learnt from centuries of practice. We both base our “Rights” under our constitutions on the English Bill Of Rights of 1689 which in turn was related to Magna Carta of 1215.There are also parallels within the legal system but the lines are becoming more blurred as each nation and their respective supreme courts interpret the exiting understanding to reflect the times.
If we can amend and update the laws of our nations, why can we not revisit our respective constitutions to make worthwhile updates? In the 237 years since the Constitution became law, there have been but 33 amendments ratified by Congress and of these,10 make up the Bill of Rights and six of the remaining 23, have not been ratified by the requisite number of States. If my memory and arithmetic is correct, there have been but 17 amendments deemed worthy of inclusion in over two centuries. Look to article five of the Constitution and the wording shows that the Founders were intent on producing a document almost impervious to the manipulations of either Federal or State bodies acting alone.
I will not bore readers here with our constitutional and legal history, it is interesting to us but not so to friends overseas.( I would be happy to provide some background if there is interest)
So to draw the argument to a conclusion, do enough of you want change? Can you devise a system whereby the “evil tyrant”: so feared by the founders, the Electoral College and William can be kept at bay? If you can rid yourselves of the medieval concept of tyranny in your country, perhaps you will discover the road, not to Damascus but to enlightenment.
Cheers my friends
From Aussie. Where I am fighting pretty much the same battle.
What you propose would suggest we really do not need a congress, law making body nor do we need a court system to determine the validity of a law.
DeleteThe question, do we want to return to an era of absolute rule by 1 person?
Perhaps what we need is a shift from the highly partisan nature of our government to a government that is able to compromise. I would suggest that we need term limits in Congress as well as the Supreme Court. When the founder envisioned the court they did not see participants for 20+ years? Senate and representatives and who make a career out of government service never knowing the hardships of work in the real world?
Since the 21st essentially cancels the 18th (prohibition) the 27 is reduced to 25.
DeleteAside from emasculating our 2nd king what progressive amendment would you propose? What would you hope to change?
Louman and William.
DeleteWilliam firstly: I had hoped that I had spelt out my suggested changes in my last post. However, in a nutshell, I proposed looking at the way the three arms of government act and at the same time see how the present unsatisfactory system can be improved with the possibility of the executive being permitted to govern in the event of a hostile congress. The period involved would extend only for the current term and there are ample opportunities for review either during the period in question or at the beginning of the next term of a Presidency, As a possible safeguard, the Supreme Court could be given a role but this is for better brains, preferably AMERICAN brains than mine to figure.
For Lew, “ Perhaps what we need is a shift from the highly partisan nature of our government to a government that is able to compromise” Yes of course you are correct and if your wish could be fulfilled, none of this very interesting debate would be necessary or even possible. We have seen during the past decade or so a hardening of positions between the dogma of the Left and the Right and I can see little possibility of genuine compromise. I do not of course have access to all the political viewpoints available to you but I fear my overriding sense of frustration is shared by many in the US.
Your frustration is understandable.
DeleteOur politicians make promises on taking office the promises are quickly forgotten. The voters spoke loudly in the last election and said they no longer supported the administrations policies by removing the majority in the senate and expanding the majority in the house. The results, the president instead of moving to the center has hardened his positions and is ruling by executive order. The only recourse, the courts. Is that what you refer to as let the president run the country? The majority has spoken and are ignored.
Imagine 2007, the people were disillusioned with Bush and gave the majority to the House and Senate to the Dems. Imagine if Bush would have done what O is doing today. Think the Dems would have agreed to allow him to run the government without their input? Not likely.
the executive being permitted to govern in the event of a hostile congress
Who draws the line on what the executive can and cannot do? Should the executive put in place a never ending term, acceptable?
There is so much contention in government today as the players remain the same only the name changes. Harry runs the Senate, McConnell is minority leader. Mc Connell blocks at every opportunity. The Senate returns to the R's and McConnell runs the senate and Reid blocks at every opportunity.
How do you fix the mess when the mess remains the same. The Dems and R's continue to elect the same people to be in charge. Term limits. 2 terms and your out, period. You can be in the House or Senate cannot serve in both. No more government retirements, no more lobbying jobs. Change you can believe in.
Without the tenure, anyone could lead the house or the senate and we would have turnover. Perhaps the congress should be able to hold a no confidence vote and call for a national election to replace the president.
King the reason I asked you to repeat your preposterous suggestion a second time was that I could not believe my eyes the first time. Like Obama you want to fundamentally dismantle our system of checks and balances. Reading your words I could not believe that anyone, especially one that has studied our successful history, could make such a short sighted suggestion.
DeleteHarry Reid overturned decades of Senate decorum with the use of the nuclear option under the guise of budget reconciliation. The result? He was swept into the dustbin of history by the few patriots that bothered to vote.
Obama has speechified that he represents those who can't bother to get out of McDonald's on election day and vote. He posits allowing those who crossed our boarder illegally to obtain work permits, and blend into the fabric of our society. We already allow great latitude to our executive including the right to put our service people in harms way for a short time without congressional approval. But we stand with George Washington who understood the tyranny that could occur should executive power become limitless.
I still can't believe that you would question checks and balances. Living under a queen for so long has certainly skewed your perspective.
William my thanks as always.
DeleteIf you read the first post by Louman on this subject you will note that quote. But one-in-four voters think the president should be able to ignore the courts if he wants to, Unquote. It was this which led us into the debate and I too was surprised that 25 percent of your fellow citizens thought as they did. From there I built up my posts by a process of reasoning together with my long held view that your great nation has remained stuck in the glorious past of revolutionary history for far too long.
It is you William who constantly refer to the "tyrants and the rule of tyranny as you look back over your shoulder in fear of finding some terrible ogre breathing down your neck. Any student of your history can but admire the founders and the unequal struggle they engaged in as they pursued their "freedoms". It was during this struggle that the tyrant became the enemy, read the handbills of those days and see what old Sam Adams had to say as he whipped up the hatred of the British. The strategy was very successful and with the indomitable spirit of those early patriots victory was assured. Nationhood was also assured by the coming together of the greatest group of men since the height of the Roman Empire.
Having won the battle, the war and the transition to nationhood I suppose it is natural that so many Americans live in that glorious past and still fear the heavy hand of oppression upon their backs. What appears to be missing is the belief in yourselves and your ability to elect not a Tyrant as your leader but a man or a woman, not British but American. Your Constitution makes sure it will be an American at the head of the table, why not trust your fellow countryman my friend?. As for your remarks concerning my views,fair enough I guess,at least you allow me to state whatever views I hold and as I quoted from Loumans post above,25percet of your citizens appear to agree with me.
Your final jibe William is not worthy of you. Living under a Queen indeed; no matter as I digest that I can allow my imagination to run riot and imagine you as the principal second to Aaron Burr on his day of infamy in July 1804.Such a scenario is almost as grotesque as me living under a queen!
Cheers my friend
From Aussie.
K,
DeleteThat 25% would truly change their mind after 2016 if a R is installed in the WH.
But Lou, would they not immediately be replaced by Repubs if there was a Dem. controlled congress? It is a circular discussion, we get back to where we started!
DeleteCheers from Aussie
In this country king we can find 25% of a sampling that believes that the sun rises in the west. When 47% are tied to the federal monstrosity by a check in their mailbox it would not be difficult to find many, like those that remained hunkered down in New Orleans whilst hurricane Katrina bore down, that would drink progressive kook aid.
DeleteKing, evil does exist, miracles do exist-witness our Declaration and Constitution, and yes tyranny can exist. The reason it doesn't exist here presently is due to our foundation, and those who fortify our rule of natural law on an ongoing basis.
Yes K, you are 100% correct.
DeleteHence the system we have in place works as well as we allow it to work.